Liam Fox is gone, but we still need questions answered

Liam Fox: 'It now appears clear that while Fox treated Werritty as a friend, Werritty treated Fox as a franchise.' Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

During recent days I never once called for Liam Fox's resignation – just the truth. The public expected the full facts and he like everyone else was entitled to a fair process. But as his defence unravelled, his resignation became inevitable. The idea that he could survive in his post without confronting the questions shows how out of touch the government has become.

As defence secretary, Dr Fox showed real commitment on Libya and Afghanistan, as well as genuine determination on transforming the MoD board, but ultimately it was his judgment that has been his undoing. Defence secretary is a post like no other, dealing with matters of war and peace. With so much at stake, and with our forces engaged on two fronts, it is untenable for the defence secretary to be distracted and unable to fulfil their public duties.

I have argued throughout that the ministerial code had been broken. Governments must have rules and ministers must have standards: Liam Fox fell foul of the standards and he broke the rules. It now appears clear that while Dr Fox treated Mr Werritty as a friend, Mr Werritty treated Dr Fox as a franchise to bolster his income.

Yet huge unanswered issues still remain. We still do not know precisely who paid Mr Werritty, when, and for what gain. We do not know the true role of organisations including the Sri Lanka Development Fund. It is essential that, after the cabinet secretary completes his report on Fox/Werritty, the government refers the wider issues to the independent adviser on ministers' interests. He should look at the issues in their entirety to establish precisely how this never happens again.

In particular, we need to know the reach of the shadow operation that was established. It's crucial that we can rule out whether any similar arrangements are operating anywhere else within government. With each passing day there have been fresh allegations of money and influence and it appears that much of the source was the Atlantic Bridge network and its US right-wing connections. We need to know just how far and how deep the links into US politics go. This crisis has discovered traces of a stealth neocon agenda. For many on the right, Atlanticism has become synonymous with a self-defeating, virulent euroscepticism that is bad for Britain. It is also intellectually lazy to force our country into a binary choice of Europe or America.

Atlantic Bridge's former funders are key funders of the Conservative party on whom David Cameron relies, and senior cabinet members were on its advisory board. Atlantic Bridge was itself a partner of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a US lobbying group funded by the Charles G Koch Foundation (predominant funders of the US Tea Party), the National Rifle Association and the Tobacco Institute, to name but a few, and which campaigns against climate change legislation and regulation of tobacco. While David Cameron's compassionate conservatism has been undermined by his actions at home, it could be further damaged by connections overseas.

The changes in the culture of influence in government have to last way beyond the moment of a ministerial resignation. David Cameron talks about transparency but people have seen through the half-truths.

It's time now for a wider inquiry not just into the events of this week but the 18 months of off-the-books money at the heart of government. I believe that work is urgent and should be independent of government.